How do you detect "design"?

[F1fan]

To throw a bone to people like @leroy , they are above such. I don't think he would say a "designer" "designed" every single individual snowflake simply because we can talk about the "design of a snowflake". People who do not even understand, or acknowledge, the difference between natural design and artificial design, or on a whole other level of stupid, tbh...

An observer could look at water and conclude that collection of atoms arranged in that way is a clever design.

Then they can observe water drain from a sink and see the swirl it makes and conclude it’s a clever design.

These are bad conclusions because what is being observed is how atoms behave according to the laws of physics. Atoms have no choice. There’s no observations of atoms doing anything that isn’t in accordance to the laws of physics. The conversion of inorganic chemicals to organic chemicals is in accordance to natural laws. The rise of more complex life forms is consistent with the natural laws too.

What we observe nature doing is called order. We don’t see anything occurring that is contrary to natural laws. What creationists try to do is create hypothetical scenarios where a designer is needed, but they can’t show any such scenarios are real.

This is where “God of the gaps” gets introduced, any unanswered questions are often exploited and a “God” claim is shoehorned in.

 

[sun rise]

May I just recommend the books of Victor J. Stenger here?

Could you provide a summary of why you recommended them?

 

[Pogo]

The idea of man created in God's image, is classically assumed to mean a visual likeness. In computer lingo, there is what is called a disk image. This has to do more with the coding on the disk, instead of the superficial facade of the disk; bootleg DVD. Disk images often are not even stored on disks, but can be in the cloud or on your hard drive, since it is the coding.

Man in God's image is not about looking the same as God, but about behaving the same; disk image or software coding. All humans have human nature, since we are all from the same species. However, this one species comes in many different skin colors. The classic superficial image approach, based on skin color; white God, does not include all humans. Human nature; disk image, on the other hand, includes all humans; the whole species. That disk image is stored in the brain, and is more about software, than hardware; firmware.

If we look at how humans, of all skin colors, approach practical building problems; engineering, the approach is rational and systematic. The rational approach has to do with the different needs of pure and applied science. You can get away with dice and cards assumptions when discussing theory, since nobody dies or gets sued if the theory is wrong. But if you have to build something, in reality, you cannot depend on odds that the tower will stand. That is fine for theory. But construction has liability issues and law suits will happen if the bridge collapses. In applied science, you need to plan and make sure it is perfect, even before you start; building codes. Building the universe was applied science, and not just done in theory. It had to be rational and not dice and cards.

In Genesis, before even breaking ground, God broods over the deep. He is the architect of the universe, who is deep in thought, planning, and drawing the blueprints, since this is not just a universe, in theory, but an actual universe with future liability insurance. Engineers need to be the most rational scientists, while theoreticians can be habitual gamblers; paid to take a gamble.

In our universe, the appearance of hydrogen is when matter stops becoming fuzzy dice. The quarks reach their steady state positions, for the protons, electrons and neutrons, on which chemistry and permanency, appears. The hydrogen goal went from the fuzzy sub particle states to solid permanency; theoretical to the practical. We now have a foundation, onto which we can build the rest. We got a rebate on our liability insurance. The footings and corner stones are set, and we are ready to pour the concrete foundation.

Well that is sort of consistent with observation, We have one barely habitable planet in apparently only one tiny section universe that has already had its life forms nearly eliminated by construction debris left lying around and is in danger of eliminating most of its occupants due to an inadequately designed HVAC system. This is pretty much what one would expect from a junior architect and an engineering section that doesn't understand the theory behind the material they memorized from those handbooks.
Since apparently this meets god's code so we can't sue, I think humans are better off with their science and theories so next time we get around to creating and teaching a god how to build a universe, they won't do such a poor job.
Of course, that would be using the fruits of science instead of just the engineers revealed handbook.

 

[LuisDantas]

Could you provide a summary of why you recommended them?

I'm only halfway through my first one ("God: The Failed Hypothesis"), but he makes it plenty clear that other books from him also touch in these themes to a considerable extent.

In a nutshell, he is very good at pointing out various experimental and theoretical consequences that would arise and provide demonstrable evidence for supernatural and paranormal claims, but end up fallling short.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

First, referring to heavily on Charles Darwin is problematic considering the sciences of evolution have move far beyond his original Theory of Evolution. Also a terribly misused and denigrated phrase. Darwin was not even the first to propose a theory concerning evolution. Darwin correctly noted a number of problems with his proposed theory.

The phrase 'natural selection' is okay of properly used in context of evolution. The sciences of evolution today has no problem using the phrase in proper context. Trying to manipulate terminology does not change anything.What other phrase would you propose to use?

I believe above you misrepresent the term design in terms of evolution and other sciences, It appies best to applied sciences where humans do indeed design things. Use of this term implies a 'Designer' and opens the can of worms of "Intelligent Design." It is a matter of fact the academic science DOES NOT use this term.

Actually, I was not referring too heavily on Darwin. I was using his concern over the term he used as an "example" of terminology no matter what form it takes can be used, redefined, misused, etc. because it is human language and these things are very fluid when people want them to be. Just like the word "design" can be used, redefined, misused, etc.

Also, I was not claiming Darwin to be the first to propose the theory of evolution. I was commenting on the challenge of what statements and terms mean and the challenges that come along with it. I.e. no matter what term one chooses there are ways that it be interpreted or respented in ways to suit something different than the way someone proposes.

Lastly, it is obvious that the study of evolution has progressed since Darwin's time. Again, I was using the example of the letter he wrote about termimology he used that he had regrets about because of how it could interpreted by others.

Please be aware I never used the term "intelligent design." I simply used the word design. A design doesn't have to have something that humans consider Intelligent to it have caused it. I see designs in the atmosphere of Jupitor. It doesn't mean that something that humans call intelligent did it. Yet, I can call it a design because of my visualization of a structure. The human body, in my eyes, also has a design and limits to what it was and can become. That is a design, but again design doesn't mean that something we humans call intelligence did it.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Sure, but that is not the problem I am addressing in the OP.

Off course we can talk about the "design of life" in natural terms.
But I'm talking about detecting artificial design. Design of unnatural origin. Done by humans, aliens or other designing entities, with purpose, intention, planning, agency.

I understand but who is to say that aliens or other designing entities are not natural? We don't have any first hand experience to say what is fully natural in the universe. We have first hand experience on this planet but beyond we are still investigating and learning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

(Please if possible do not answer as you read, please first read the whole post and then answer,) ...............(only if possible)

That sounds like a tautology; obviously “evidence for manipulation” would be evidence for design. These are synonyms,

The question is, if you observe an object, what objective method could you use to determine if there is evidence for manipulation (design)?

No, those are not synonyms. One is evidence of the other.
And I already told you this. This is why we require knowledge of what manipulated things look like and what natural things look like, so that we are able to tell them apart.

We know what a carved stone looks like (which is to say, we understand what carving is and what it results in and can therefor recognize it in a rock) and we know what natural water erosion, in say a river, looks like and can therefor also recognize it when it occured.

You seem to be saying that we have our experience as the tool to detect design.

Duh.

you are saying (it seems to me) that: We know that designers (artists) draw realistic and abstract humans , we know that nature can create mountains rocks or clouds that *moreless* look like humans)

Therefore if we observe the first we would conclude design, if we observe the former we would conclude “nature”

Is this a correct representation of you argument?

We can tell the difference between a carved rock and a naturally shaped rock, yes.
We understand these processes and can tell which occurred when examining an object that has been shaped by either.

If you don't understand either, then how could you tell the difference?

so under your view, if previously blind person, who recovered his sight yesterday, (or an alien) observes the drawign of a human created by an artist, he would have no way to tell if it was design or not, unless he ask us?................is this correct?..............

No. The blind person will still have had interaction with other humans and have learned about things. Being blind does not make one oblivious to anything and everything.

Well take for example the first “Neanderthal made spear” that was ever found by archeologists. Since it was the first ever found there were no other samples to compare them with , but still scientists where capable of concluding design.

Are you seriously saying we had absolutely no previous examples of spears or spear-making?

Are you being deliberatly obtuse?

In other words, we do not need prior knowledge for how neatherthals made their spears, in order to conclude design

We know what spears are and how they are made. Regardless of who makes them

For example scientists for the SETI project are looking for “Dyson Spheres” in other stars, because such an object would be evidence for design and evidence for a super advanced civilization of aliens.

SETI is not looking for such spheres, for starters.
Secondly, even if they were, dyson spheres are things WE have come up with.
It's not like we found them before we conceptualized the idea.

These objects , if they exists would be detectable and scientists would conclude “design” despite not having any other samples to compare with, nor prior knowledge of the aliens that live near that star.

You should think things through. If these scientists, as you say, are in fact actively looking for them....then that literally implies that we have conceptualized them before finding them...

And the way we conceptualized them was by... you guessed it... our own experience with technology.
We harness power in all sorts of ways, so we can use that experience to consider "more advanced" ways of doing so.
A Dyson sphere is in essence merely the "intergalactic empire"'s way of using solar panels.

It's an extension of our very own technology and manufacturing principles that we already use en masse today.

So by your view……… scientists would be mistaken in claiming “desing” is such an object is found?..........do you think that the whole premise of the proyect is wrong?

No, it's your understanding of the points being made that is wrong.
What scientists look for in terms of signs of advanced extra-terrestrial civilizations is 110% based on the knowledge of how we do things here on earth.

The fact that in your very own example they mention explicitely what it is they set out to look for, should give you a clue.

Now before you start changing the topic and claiming that God is evil and that the bible has contradictions and all other irrelevant stuff

???????

please note that my only point tis that you are wonrg in this particular point..........................we dont kneed knowledge of the manufacturing procesess in order to conclude design.........................

You have completely failed to make that point. Every example, both real and hypothetical, that you have given here has shown the exact opposite.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, I was not referring too heavily on Darwin. I was using his concern over the term he used as an "example" of terminology no matter what form it takes can be used, redefined, misused, etc. because it is human language and these things are very fluid when people want them to be. Just like the word "design" can be used, redefined, misused, etc.

Also, I was not claiming Darwin to be the first to propose the theory of evolution. I was commenting on the challenge of what statements and terms mean and the challenges that come along with it. I.e. no matter what term one chooses there are ways that it be interpreted or respented in ways to suit something different than the way someone proposes.

Lastly, it is obvious that the study of evolution has progressed since Darwin's time. Again, I was using the example of the letter he wrote about termimology he used that he had regrets about because of how it could interpreted by others.

Please be aware I never used the term "intelligent design." I simply used the word design. A design doesn't have to have something that humans consider Intelligent to it have caused it. I see designs in the atmosphere of Jupitor. It doesn't mean that something that humans call intelligent did it. Yet, I can call it a design because of my visualization of a structure. The human body, in my eyes, also has a design and limits to what it was and can become. That is a design, but again design doesn't mean that something we humans call intelligence did it.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

My previous post covered this completely. When communicating in the English language you should not redefine terms to suite yourself. It creates overlapping meanings. "Intelligent Design" is a specific concept defined in a previous post, whether you use the word Intelligent or not which clear and specific terms refers to "design" in nature, by a "Designer" outside Nature. In terms of science it is important to differentiate "Design" by human or Alien(?) influences from causes of Natural Laws and Natural processes.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

1. a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
2. "he has just unveiled his design for the new museum"
   
   Similar: plan, blueprint, drawing, scale drawing. sketch, outline, map, plot, diagram, delineation, draft, depiction, representation, artist's impression, scheme, model, prototype, proposal
   
   2. an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration.
   "pottery with a lovely blue and white design."
   
   
   
   
   Similar objections of terminology when you referred to Darwin's view of problems with the phrase "Natural Selection." It is best to refer to terminology and how it is used today in science. The only relevance Charles Darwin has today is historical as far as the sciences of evolution today. He had and acknowledged many problems with his proposed theory and clearly stated they would be resolved in the future by science.

 

[PureX]

DESIGN: An enforced process that when engaged, produces a specific result.

"Nature" is design. That's how and why science can study it.

 

[shunyadragon]

I thought it would interesting if I gavea real life example in my previous work as a Soil Scientist and Geologist in work on a team on an archaeological site in the area of the forks of the Hughes River.It was an ideal known site for finding Native American artifacts made of flint and chert. There was an out crop of older rock in what was called the "Burning Springs anticline," that contained flint and chert, The only location in the region where this occurred. There were large river terraces around where the rivers meet. One of the goals of the research was to identify where the Indian village sites were in the area. There were several locations where there were burned charred carbon, and the goal was to determine if these location were natural or manmade. I assisted in excavating the possible sites and collected samples and looked closely at the nature of the deposits.

Based on the observations and analysis several of the sites were found to be human camp fire sites in the center and around where the villages were located. The others were Natural flood deposited debri and stumps.

The criteria for making the determination were as follows:

(1) Chemical analysis of the charred debri showed organics related to cooking animal fats, and animal bone fragments.
(2) The human campfire sites showed a concentration of flint and chert chips around the site from making tools primarily arrow, spear points. and axe heads found in the area.
(3)In the areas of Natural flood deposited charcoal and wood debri I found erratic remains of stumps and log debris I showed the team similar recent flood deposited debris in the forested areas in the floodplain near the Native American Camp sites.

Note: "The Burning Springs Anticline" was the second oldest oil and gas field in the USA where gas and oil seeps would constantly burn after forest fires. It is also the site of the first natural asphalt mine "Ritchie Mine" used to pave the streets of DC. The organic asphalt was called. "Grahamite." Later mined in Utah called "Gibsonite."It can be differentiated from manmade asphalte by chemical analysis.

 

[shunyadragon]

DESIGN: An enforced process that when engaged, produces a specific result.

"Nature" is design. That's how and why science can study it.

I gave the complete and proper definition for "Design" from the Oxford Dictionary. Yours is a personal definition like provided by @Ehav4Ever, and confusing and incorrect without proper reference. See post #68.

Again . . . personal efforts at redefining English terms are only good for communicating with yourself.

 

[leroy]

No, those are not synonyms. One is evidence of the other.
And I already told you this. This is why we require knowledge of what manipulated things look like and what natural things look like, s

Sorry, I don’t see how aren’t these synonymous?...........obviously evidence for manipulation would be evidence for design, evidnce for patters that could likely have been created by nature would be evidence for nature.

Then what? what is your point? What am I missing?


If your point is that we know that spears are design, because we have seen people carving spears, I would disagree…………I would argue that we can know that they were design independently of that prior observation………….And I could defend my position

If you are not saying that, then I apologize for the starwmann and would like to know what your point really is

 

[Altfish]

How do I detect 'design'. I find the architect's or engineer's drawings

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, I don’t see how aren’t these synonymous?...........obviously evidence for manipulation would be evidence for design, evidnce for patters that could likely have been created by nature would be evidence for nature.

Then what? what is your point? What am I missing?

Your missing that any manipulation by humans that is not simply natural can be detected,

Design as defined in my reference is specifically related to human manipulation

If your point is that we know that spears are design, because we have seen people carving spears, I would disagree…………I would argue that we can know that they were design independently of that prior observation………….And I could defend my position/

Terrible intentiona lignorance of how simple observations can determine whether objects such as spears can be identified as human design and manufacture, Science can deal with more difficult situation as I described in my work as a soil scientist.

You need to do more than simply assert an outrageous statement with something more substantial that does not reflect your bias.

If you are not saying that, then I apologize for the starwmann and would like to know what your point really is;

The point is clear objects can be determined as to whether they are design or not mostly by simply observation, but more difficult situations science can easily make the determination.

Can you provide an example of some thing where the question of whether it was designed and made by humans? Your example of the spear is not adequate. Ir is too easy to determine it was designed by humans for hunting and warfare, Animals canot design spears.

Post #68 simply describes the criteria for determining what s designed, It is not rocket science, it is simply what can be determined as designed by humans as defined.

 

[Pogo]

I thought it would interesting if I gavea real life example in my previous work as a Soil Scientist and Geologist in work on a team on an archaeological site in the area of the forks of the Hughes River.It was an ideal known site for finding Native American artifacts made of flint and chert. There was an out crop of older rock in what was called the "Burning Springs anticline," that contained flint and chert, The only location in the region where this occurred. There were large river terraces around where the rivers meet. One of the goals of the research was to identify where the Indian village sites were in the area. There were several locations where there were burned charred carbon, and the goa; was to determine if these location were natural or manmade. I assisted in excavating the possible sites and collected samples and looked closely at the nature of the deposits.

Based on the observations and analysis several of the sites were found to be human camp fire sites in the center and around where the villages were located. The others were Natural flood deposited debri and stumps.

The criteria for making the determination were as follows:

(1) Chemical analysis of the charred debri showed organics related to cooking animal fats, and animal bone fragments.
(2) The human campfire sites showed a concentration of flint and chert chips around the site from making tools primarily arrow, spear points. and axe heads found in the area.
(3)In the areas of Natural flood deposited charcoal and wood debri I found erratic remains of stumps and log debris I showed the team similar recent flood deposited debris in the forested areas in the floodplain near the Native American Camp sites.

Note: "The Burning Springs Anticline" was the second oldest oil and gas field in the USA where gas and oil seeps would constantly burn after forest fires. It is also the site of the first natural asphalt mine "Ritchie Mine" used to pave the streets of DC. The organic asphalt was called. "Grahamite." Later mined in Utah called "Gibsonite."It can be differentiated from manmade asphalte by chemical analysis.

In other words, again, evidence of known patterns of human manipulation vs natural (erratic) patterns, and without the evidence the conclusion is "I don't know".

 

[shunyadragon]

I understand but who is to say that aliens or other designing entities are not natural? We don't have any first hand experience to say what is fully natural in the universe. We have first hand experience on this planet but beyond we are still investigating and learning.

I believe you are unnecessarily 'arguing from ignorance' as to what Aliens could be.

You have to clarify what you mean by "other designing entities," could possibly be.

You arguing from unreasonable speculation.

We know a great deal about the nature of our physical existence uad what would be called natural, and at present none of the above is remotely relevant. By our present knowledge and definitions if we find intelligent beings we called aliens they would be natural. If they arrived here on some kind of vehicle it would designed and built by them.

.https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Hypothesis%20Contrary%20to%20Fact.html#:~:text=In%20the%20fallacy%20of%20Hypothesis,fact%20stated%20in%20the%20premiss.

The fallacy of Hypothesis Contrary to Fact appears to follow the same general pattern of reasoning, but it does not. In the fallacy of Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, the conclusion is a hypothetical statement, while the premiss is a statement of fact. We are inferring a connection between an antecendent and a consequent from the fact stated in the premise. In the examples of legitimate hypothetical reasoning given in the paragraph above, the hypothetical statement is not the conclusion; it is one of the premisses. I take it as given that if I turn left, I will get lost, and then make my choices accordingly. The teacher takes it as given that if you had turned in your assignments you would not have gotten an F. The fact that you got an F is then explained by your poor choices. The conclusion of the argument is not a hypothetical statement; rather, the conclusion is, "You should have turned in your assignments."

It might be noted that the logical movement in Hypothesis Contrary to Fact should not be considered fallacious by logicians who subscribe to the truth-functional definition of "if...then..."

 

[PureX]

I gave the complete and proper definition for "Design" from the Oxford Dictionary. Yours is a personal definition like provided by @Ehav4Ever, and confusing and incorrect without proper reference. See post #68.

Again . . . personal efforts at redefining English terms are only good for communicating with yourself.

Dictionary definitions are full of bias and idiocy because that’s how people often use language. If you want to actually understand something you’ll have to put aside the dictionary and work out the real definitions based on logic, not on common usage.

 

[shunyadragon]

Dictionary definitions are full of bias and idiocy because that’s how people often use language. If you want to actually understand something you’ll have to put aside the dictionary and work out the real definitions based on logic, not on common usage.

No, dictionary definitions evolved over the years as a firm foundation of 'real definitions the English language. They are not necessarily fixed, but they should not be abused as you makeup your own imaginative definitions to justify your agenda to show people your idiocy and bias based on your agenda.

We will communicate best if you use the English language, either British of Americans with an emphasis on science. I will accept definitions from any acceptable academic dictionary and tolerate reasonable deviation with explanation,

The philosophy of Logic is on based standard Oxford Dictionary terms and rules with definitions.

 

[shunyadragon]

May I just recommend the books of Victor J. Stenger here?

You could, but the audience world be small. He presents arguments against the existence of God. His book on the Fine Tuning Argument is well done.

 

[osgart]

Has cosmic fine-tuning been refuted? « Math Scholar

I'm sure that the overall consensus is that the universe is anomalously fine tuned.